G.R. No.
L-16486 March 22, 1921  It may be added that Venancio has not returned to his lodging in Manila and his
THE UNITED STATES, plaintiff-appelle,
vs. CALIXTO VALDEZ Y QUIRI, defendant-appellant.
STREET, J.:
SUMMARY
Venancio, who was then on a boat, jumped into the water believing he was in great peril
after Calixto threatened to stab him, causing his death. The accused was then charged
with homicide.
ARTICLES/DOCTRINES USED
“If a man creates in another man's mind an immediate sense of danger which causes such
person to try to escape, and in so doing he injuries himself, the person who creates such a
state of mind is responsible for the injuries which result”
FACTS:
 November 29, 1919 interisland steamer Vigan was anchored in the Pasig River a
short distance from the lighthouse and not far from where the river debouches into
the Manila Bay.
 A small boat was sent out to raise the anchor.
o The crew of this boat consisted of the accused, Calixto Valdez y Quiri, and
six others among who was the deceased, Venancio Gargantel.
o The accused was in charge of the men and stood at the stern of the boat,
acting as helmsman, while Venancio Gargantel was at the bow (forward
part of the boat)
 The work raising the anchor seems to have proceeded too slowly to satisfy the
accused, and he accordingly began to abuse the men with offensive epithets.
 Venancio Gargantel remonstrated, saying that it would be better, and they would
work better, if he would not insult them.
 The accused took this remonstrance as a display of insubordination; and rising in
rage he moved towards Venancio, with a big knife in hand, threatening to stab him
 Venancio, evidently believing himself in great and immediate peril, threw himself
into the water and disappeared beneath its surface to be seen no more.
o The boat in which this incident took place was at the time possibly 30 or 40
yards from shore, it was full midday, and there was nothing to obstruct the
view of persons upon the scene, the failure of Venancio Gargantel to rise to
the surface conclusively shows that, owing to his possible inability to swim
or the strength of the current, he was borne down into the water and was
drowned.
 Two witnesses who were on the boat state that after Venancio leaped into the
water, the accused told the remaining members of the crew to keep quiet or he
would kill them
o For this reason they made no movement looking to rescue
 On the next day one of the friends of Venancio Gargantel posted himself near the
lighthouse to watch for the body. His friendly vigil lasted three days nothing came of
it.
personal belongings have been delivered to a representative of his mother. His
friends and relatives, it is needless to say, take it for granted that he is dead
 The proof is direct that he never rose to the surface after jumping into the river, so
far as the observers could see; and this circumstance, coupled with the known fact
that human life must inevitably be extinguished by asphyxiation under water, is
conclusive of his death. The possibility that he might have swum ashore, after rising
in a spot hidden from the view of his companions, we consider too remote to be
entertained for a moment.
 The accused was charged with homicide
ISSUE
 WON the accused is guilty of homicide.
RULING
 YES. As to the criminal responsibility of the accused for the death thus occasioned
the likewise can be no doubt; for it is obvious that the deceased, in throwing himself
in the river, acted solely in obedience to the instinct of self-preservation and was in
no sense legally responsible for his own death.
 As to him it was but the exercise of a choice between two evils, and any reasonable
person under the same circumstances might have done the same. As was once said
by a British court, "If a man creates in another man's mind an immediate sense of
danger which causes such person to try to escape, and in so doing he injuries
himself, the person who creates such a state of mind is responsible for the injuries
which result." (Reg. vs. Halliday, 61 L. T. Rep. [N.S.], 701
 a pertinent decision from the Supreme Court of Spain, of July 13, 1882, is cited,
enunciated the following doctrine: "That even though the death of the injured person
should not be considered as the exclusive and necessary effect of the very grave
wound which almost completely severed his axillary artery, occasioning a
hemorrhage impossible to stanch under the circumstances in which that person was
placed, nevertheless as the persistence of the aggression of the accused compelled
his adversary, in order to escape the attack, to leap into the river, an act which the
accused forcibly compelled the injured person to do after having inflicted, among
others, a mortal wound upon him and as the aggressor by said attack manifested a
determined resolution to cause the death of the deceased, by depriving him of all
possible help and putting him in the very serious situation narrated in the decision
appealed from, the trial court, in qualifying the act prosecuted as consummated
homicide, did not commit any error of law, as the death of the injured person was
due to the act of the accused."
 The accused must, therefore, be considered the responsible author of the death of
Venancio Gargantel, and he was properly convicted of the offense of homicide.
 The trial judge appreciated as an attenuating circumstance the fact that the offender
had no intention to commit so great a wrong as that committed. (Par. 3, art. 9 Penal
Code.)
 Said sentenced is in accordance with law; and it being understood that the
accessories appropriate to the case are those specified in article 59 of the Penal
Code, the same is affirmed, with costs against the appellant. So ordered.